[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: philsophical background
Matthias,
You kindly replied:
>Is there a way you could pass us a bit more about the essence of these
>books, the part that is important to us? I think most of us are not
>>going to read Heidegger (as far as I know its heavy complext, isn't
>>it?) to improve their impro.
>It could be an essay, a collection of paragraphs out of those books...
>Maybe another page on the site: "Philosophical background"? I would >love
>that.Others would help.
Yes, I could make some notes or annotations on these books and essays.It
is true that Heidegger's work is difficult. I was once lucky enough to
be part of an interpretive community of fellow students that wanted to
read big chunks of "Being and Time" line by line, pausing to discuss and
react to passages in the text. None of us had an easy time reading it,
mostly because Heidegger oddly structures the arguments and invents
idiosyncratic terms in order to disclose ways of conceiving of human
being (being human) which are not apparent under the standard and
transparently ever-present Cartesian ways of conceiving human being. I
don't know if reading "Being and Time" has improved my improvising, but
it has provided a sort of alternative paradigmatically self-referential
view or understanding of all human activity. Many of the people I read
"Being and Time" with are artists and performers, so the discussion
often ranged over issues of the meaning of artistic activity and
expression. read "Being and Time" and ponder Heidegger's idea of
"thrownness" with a bunch of fellow travellers, or a good companion
guidebook like Hubert Dreyfus' "Being-in-the-World."
Anyway, this philosophical background page idea is a good one. I would
like to contribute to this. It may take me a long time to come up with
something thoughtfully produced which isn't pedantic or otherwise a
possible bore, but I'd give it a try, especially if others will too.
Here's a sample quote from Francisco Varela, et.al.:
"Evocations of Groundlessness:
Our journey has now brought us to the point where we can appreciate that
what we took to be solid ground is really more like shifting sand
beneath our feet. We began with our common sense as cognitive scientists
and found that our cognition emerges from a background of a world that
extends beyond us but that cannot be found apart from our embodiment.
When we shifted our attention away from this fundamental circularity to
follow the movement of cognition alone, we found that we could discern
no subjective ground, no permanent and abiding ego-self. When we tried
to find the objective ground that we thought might still be present, we
found a world enacted by our history of structural coupling [acts of
meaning-making emerging over time as constructions or traditions of
conception and understanding]. Finally, we saw that these various forms
of groundlessness are really one: organism and environment enfold into
each other and unfold from one another in the fundamental circularity
that is life itself."
This quote is from the book "The Embodied Mind" by Francisco Varela,
Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991
(p.217).
Sometimes the jargon can get in the way, and sometimes it carries us
forward: to a deeper understanding of what is common, or strange, or
beautiful.
More later.
Thankyou,
Michael Preston